[huh?]

For a flat Earth:
The Earth feels flat
The Earth does not feel like it is moving



Against a flat Earth:
Ships sink below the horizon
Time of day and sun angles do not work on the flat Earth map
No one has ever found an edge
We have hundreds of thousands of pics from space and hundreds of actual eye witnesses who have been in space and seen it.
It can and has been surveyed
Two plumb bobs spaced far apart are not parallel
The way the night sky moves is only possible with a round Earth
No one has actually seen the mysterious "anti-moon" which causes eclipses of the moon.
Every minute of the day we are circumnavigating the globe with planes boats and satellites
The distances between things do not work on the flat earth model
The horizon is visible as a sharp line and does not fade out.
The Coriolis effect is evident
The sky appears curved
The flat Earth model does not allow the sun to ever appear below 40 degrees from the horizon but the sun clearly sinks below it.
The shape of the Earth and it's orbit around the sun are proven because this model exactly predicts when and at what angle the sun will be visible from any point on Earth an any time. No flat Earth model could do that.
The distance to the Sun and Moon are far more than the 3000 miles estimated in the FE model
The distance to the horizon is measurable
Man made satellites can be seen with the naked eye and tracked with directional antennas.
About 40 nations have combined launched more than 6000 satellites into space with about 500 currently operational.

[Pongo]

I guess that's it then.  All these years and all we needed was for someone to come along and make a pro/con list off the top of their head.  Can you make pro/con list on theories about what's on the other end of a black hole so that can be definitively proved as well?  Thanks.

[huh?]

Except these are not theories because they are provable

[Thork]

The sky appears curved

So? No one said the sky was flat. This isn't the flat sky society.

[huh?]

yes,
but I still count it as evidence for a round Earth because there is no explanation of why the sky would be domed in the flat earth model whereas the round Earth model accounts for it.
 

[huh?]

Also there is no explanation in the flat Earth model as to what is keeping the sun from falling to Earth. Whereas the Round Earth model accounts for it.

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae, which means 'law of parsimony') is a problem-solving principle devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

The key here is any models ability to predict. Any model which fails to predict is immediately invalidated by it's inability to predict. The round Earth model can predict with a very high accuracy. The flat Earth model can not.   

[Thork]

yes,
but I still count it as evidence for a round Earth because there is no explanation of why the sky would be domed in the flat earth model whereas the round Earth model accounts for it.
 

Yes there is. It is called the firmament.

Also there is no explanation in the flat Earth model as to what is keeping the sun from falling to Earth. Whereas the Round Earth model accounts for it.

Just because you don't know the explanation doesn't mean there isn't one. Look up 'celestial gears'.

[huh?]

Simply giving something a name does not account for it.

A theory has to actually explain why/how something works

As far as Celestial Gears that theory works as long as you are only looking from one or more isolated spots on Earth and only for a short span of time.

When you take into account a record through the total orbit of the Earth and from multiple positions at the same time it becomes apparent that the "Celestial Gears" are broken.

I know you all really hate telescopes, observation, levels, and in general any other evidence than what you can see with your naked eye at any given moment but really it would save you a lot of misunderstanding if you would actually do what your great ancestors did and actually use science.

[Thork]

Simply saying our theories aren't correct, doesn't make that so either.

[Pongo]

Simply giving something a name does not account for it.

I believe that's exactly how the theory of gravity came about.

[huh?]

they are not correct because you do not have a theory that actually predicts anything correctly

At any moment you want to come up with one that can not be proven wrong then you will have one worth keeping.

[Thork]

Newtonian gravity theory doesn't predict correctly on a quantum scale and quantum mechanics theories do not predict gravity on a macro scale. I don't see you dismissing those.

You are indulging in hypocrisy and cherry picking.

[geckothegeek]

If you really get down to reality (Which is something you rarely see from flat earthers. LOL) There are really no "Pros" for a flat earth but all "Cons" for a flat earth.

The size and shape of the earth is really a moot point.

"Case Closed" (Clue of "End of discussion" in today's New York Times Crossword Puzzle )

Although it may not seem to be so in some of my posts I DO try to be tolerant of flat earther's beliefs....However false they may be. LOL. And best regards and best wishes to all flat earthers. Have fun ! Enjoy !

Another one for huh? to add to his list.:
How about the distances from the earth to the moon ? Is every one who has ever measured the distance that is different from the flat earth measurement liars  ? Astronomical observatory laser measurements and amateur radio "Moon Bounce" measurements included  ?

[huh?]

I believe that's exactly how the theory of gravity came about.

I do not know if there is a theory of gravity. There is an understanding of how it effects things but why it exists is unknown. But there are no paradoxes involving gravity it works the same on all objects and can be accounted for and predicted. It is an reasonable well understood characteristic of what we find around us.

This is not the same as saying well the Earth is flat and that is why we can stand on it but the sun is just up there traveling about and we have no idea why.

[huh?]

Newtonian gravity theory doesn't predict correctly on a quantum scale and quantum mechanics theories do not predict gravity on a macro scale. I don't see you dismissing those.

You are indulging in hypocrisy and cherry picking.

I do not think it is a valid requirement to say that since we do not know everything about gravity anything we do know is therefore invalid.

If we can use what we do know to predict how it will effect objects on the non-quantum level then our understanding of the non quantum level is pretty good. I would certainly not claim that we could not have a better understanding of gravity. It is just that the round Earth model does account for all observable phenomena we can see or detect around us.   

[huh?]

Where as in order to make the Flat Earth Theory work most science and empirical evidence has to be ignored and or replaced with mysteries and conspiracies.

[geckothegeek]

Newtonian gravity theory doesn't predict correctly on a quantum scale and quantum mechanics theories do not predict gravity on a macro scale. I don't see you dismissing those.

You are indulging in hypocrisy and cherry picking.

I do not think it is a valid requirement to say that since we do not know everything about gravity anything we do know is therefore invalid.

If we can use what we do know to predict how it will effect objects on the non-quantum level then our understanding of the non quantum level is pretty good. I would certainly not claim that we could not have a better understanding of gravity. It is just that the round Earth model does account for all observable phenomena we can see or detect around us.

I don't want to get into a Theological subject  debate but I believe God made a lot of things.
Science is just figuring out how to discover them,  make them work and how  to put them to use. Pipe Organs for just one example. And Bach.

[geckothegeek]

Where as in order to make the Flat Earth Theory work most science and empirical evidence has to be ignored and or replaced with mysteries and conspiracies.

It has been also pointed out that most flat earth "Ideas" don't really deserve to be called "Theories."

[Charming Anarchist]

The shape of the Earth and it's orbit around the sun are proven because this model exactly predicts ..... 

..... great!!!!   


Joke/Note to honest and honorable folks: 
Do you know any RoundShillSociety forums?  I would like to ask them when Mr.Gravity is going to pull the Sun/Earth into the Earth/Sun ---- whichever comes first.  I hope their fantasy-model can exactly predict that schedule!  They are so good at re-counting history, predicting the future and warping time!  They must have all of the answers! 

[geckothegeek]

The shape of the Earth and it's orbit around the sun are proven because this model exactly predicts ..... 

..... great!!!!   


Joke/Note to honest and honorable folks: 
Do you know any RoundShillSociety forums?  I would like to ask them when Mr.Gravity is going to pull the Sun/Earth into the Earth/Sun ---- whichever comes first.  I hope their fantasy-model can exactly predict that schedule!  They are so good at re-counting history, predicting the future and warping time!  They must have all of the answers!

There are a lot of subjects which really do require a lot of study and research to understand them. That doesn't seem to be the order of work for flat earthers.
I don't think the so-called (by the flat earthers) "Round Earthers" claim to know all the answers. Do the flat earthers claim to know all the answers ?